Whether an action for dismissal is void automatically by mistake that a resignation officer due to deception or coercion has been made up according to the truth.

Even though the defendant submitted a resignation against the intention of deception or coercion and expressed his/her intention of withdrawal, it cannot be deemed that there is any apparent apparent defect in appearance to readily determine the illegality of the above dismissal disposition, only on the grounds that the defendant accepted it as is and was subject to dismissal of the plaintiff.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu4 Delivered on June 30, 1970

Plaintiff

The Minister of Home Affairs

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney confirms that the disposition of dismissal made by the non-party Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City against the plaintiff on May 11, 1967 is invalid.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The fact that the non-party Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor made an action of dismissal against the plaintiff as of May 11, 1967 is no dispute between the parties.

On April 13, 1967, when the plaintiff was appointed as police officer and was in charge of conducting investigation at the investigation department of the Yongsan Police Station at the same time on April 1959, when the plaintiff filed a complaint against the non-party 2, the non-party 1 did not comply with the upper part and the opinion, and thus, the fact was reported on the newspaper and caused water, so that the non-party 3 was not in charge of conducting investigation at the same time, the plaintiff's non-party 3 should submit a resignation report to the plaintiff in order to rectify the case of newspaper and news, and even if he submitted a resignation report, it would be clear that the plaintiff would be detained without submitting a resignation report. Thus, the non-party 1's resignation was not submitted to the non-party 2, and the above non-party 3 should not be notified to the non-party 1's resignation and thus, it should be accepted that the non-party 3's resignation should not be revoked.

However, if an administrative disposition can be deemed null and void because it is illegal, it refers only to the case where the degree of illegality is serious, and there is an obvious external defect that can easily confirm the existence of the illegal act. In this case, the plaintiff's private employee, which is the basis of the disposition of this case, was submitted against the plaintiff's will due to deception or coercion, and even after it was submitted, despite the plaintiff's intention of withdrawal was not submitted, it shall not be deemed that the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government accepted it as being submitted according to the plaintiff's intention and accepted it as it is, and it shall not be deemed that the disposition of this case was an obvious defect to the extent that it can easily determine the illegality of the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of objection is a claim for confirmation of invalidation of an administrative disposition that cannot be deemed null and void and it shall not be deemed an object of the disposition.

Therefore, without making a decision on the remainder, the plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jung-so (Presiding Judge)